Omar Renteria v. B. Birkholz
Opinion
OMAR RENTERIA, Case No. 2:25-cv-02798-CV-KES
Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.
B. BIRKHOLZ, Warden, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Respondent.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition (Dkt. 1), the
other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 18). No objections to the Report and
Recommendation were filed, and the deadline for filing such objections has passed.
The Court accepts the report, findings, and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing the
Petition as moot.
As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner is not
required to obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does not require federal prisoners bringing § 2241 petitions to obtain a COA in order to appeal, unless the § 2241 petition “is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 petition”); see e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-cv-020094-VBF-KK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131448 at *2, 2014 WL 4656432 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) (adopting report and recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not required to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition). DATED: ___9/11/25 ythia. Valunzusla Cyntfiia Valenzuela UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Omar Renteria v. B. Birkholz (Omar Renteria v. B. Birkholz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.